O R D
E R This special leave petition arises from the judgment of the Division Bench
of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana.

made
on October 7, 1996 in CWP No.15698/96.

The
admitted facts are that while the petitioner was working as a Sub-Inspector of
Police in Faridabad District in GurgaonRange, adverse entries were made in his
confidential report for the period from April 25, 1994 to March 31, 1995. The same came to be communicated to him by the
Superintendent of Police, Faridadad on August 2, 1995.

The
representation made by the petitioner was rejected by the Deputy Inspector
General of Police by proceedings dated December 21, 1995. His further representation was
rejected by the Director General of Police in his letter dated May 13, 1996. It was stated therein that there
was no provision for second representation. When the petitioner moved the High
Court under Article 226, the writ petition was dismissed.

The
entries made by the Superintendent of Police were as under:

"1.
Honesty : Report of corruption

2. Reliability
: Unreliable

3. Defects
: For improving, called several times and advised.

4.
General Remarks : Can become a good police officer if he can control corruption
and temptation." The contention of Shri Rambir Yadav, learned counsel for
the petitioner, is that the High Court has wrongly dismissed the writ petition
in view of the settled legal position that if the adverse remarks impinge upon
the career petitioner, the representation made to the higher authorities
requires consideration and that rejection thereof must be supported by reasons.
The remarks made by the Superintendent of Police are vague and without any
particulars and, therefore, the rejection of the second representation is
unjust and unfair to the petitioner and is also arbitrary.

We
find no force in the contention. It is true that in view of the settled legal
position, the object of a Government servant and communication of the adverse
remarks is to afford an opportunity to the concerned officer to make amends to
his remiss; to reform himself; to mend his conduct and to be disciplined, to
mend his conduct and to be disciplined, to do hardwork, to bring home his lapse
in his integrity and character so that he corrects himself and improves the
efficiency in public service. The entries, therefore, require and objective
assessment of the work and conduct of a Government servant reflecting as
accurately as possible his sagging inefficiency and incompetency. The defects
and deficiencies brought home to the officer, are means to to the end of
correcting himself and to show improvement towards excellence. The confidential
report, therefore, would contain the assessment of the work, devotion to duty
and integrity of the officer concerned. The aforestated entries indicate and
reflect that the Superinteeent of Police had assessed the reputation of the
officer, his honesty, relibility and general reputation gathered around the
officer's Performance of the duty and shortfalls in that behalf.

It is
sad but a bitter reality that corruption is corroding, like cancerous lymph
nodes, the vital veins of the body politics, social fabric of efficiency in the
public service and demoralising the honest officers. The efficiency in public
service would improve only when the public servant devotes his sincere
attention and does the duty diligently, truthfully, honestly and devotes
himself assiduously to the performance of the duties of his post. The
reputation of corrupt would gather thick and unchaseable clouds around the
conduct of the officer and gain notoreity much faster than the smoke.
Sometimes, there may not be concrete or material evidence to make it part of
the record. It would, therefore, may be impracticable for the reporting officer
of the competent controlling officer writhing the confidential report to give
specific instances of shortfalls, supported by evidence, like the remarks made
by the Superintendent of Police. More often, the corrupt officer manipulates in
such a way and leaves no traceable evidence to be made part of the record for
being cited as specific instance. It would, thus, appear that the order does
not contain or the officer writing the report could not give particulars of the
corrupt activities of the petitioner. He honestly assessed that the petitioner
would prove himself efficient officer, provided he controls his temptation for
corruption. That would clearly indicate the fallibility of the petitioner, vis-a-
vis the alleged acts of corruption. Under these circumstances, it cannot be
said that the remarks made in the confidential report are vague without any
particulars and, therefore, cannot be sustained. It is seen that the officers
made the remarks on the basis of the reputation of the petitioner. It was,
therefore, for him to improve his conduct, prove honesty and integrity in
future in which event, obviously, the authority for the subsequent period.

The
appellate authority duly considered and rejected the contention of the
petitioner. Repeated representation could render little service. Rejection,
therefore, is neither arbitrary nor illegal.

The
special leave netition, therefore, does not warrant interference. It is
accordingly dismissed.